Abstract

To evaluate
the effect of using communal laying nests and innovative single occupant
boxes for incubating and brooding chickens in central Uganda, this study was
commissioned. A total of 36 indigenous and 18 crossbred hens were mated
either to indigenous or Bovan Brown cocks. Hens either laid eggs in
individual or communal nests. On turning broody, each hen was given 12
eggs to incubate and later brooded its chicks either with access to a free
range at will, or was confined in a spacious incubation/brooding box over a
ten week period.

The number of eggs laid in one clutch and
the proportion that hatched per hen varied significantly across the
treatments. Crossbred hens laying in communal nests had 10.7±0.5 eggs while
those under individual nesting had 8.4±0.4 eggs; indigenous hens had 9.5±0.9
and 6.9±0.9 eggs respectively. The mean hatchability for confined hens
(87.5±7.5%) was significantly higher than for free range hens (77.5±1.7%).
Confined crossbred hens had better hatchability (93.9±6.1%) than those under
free range (78.5±4.7%), while confined indigenous hens (72.5±9.3%) did not
differ from their free ranging counterparts (79.8±9.6). Confined hens weaned
most chicks (11.0) while free range indigenous hens had only 2.9.
Confinement effectively cut out predation of chicks and transmission of
disease pathogens. Confined birds also produced an average of 95.7 g of
manure/bird/day, but for free range birds it was non quantifiable. The
confinement innovation therefore improves chicken performance and should be
promoted for small and medium holder farmers.

Introduction

Poultry keeping makes a substantial contribution to household food security
throughout the developing world (FAO 2004). Globally, the supply of and
demand for poultry products has shown a very rapid upward trajectory, with
poultry now providing 28% of all meat (FAO 2011). Rural poultry production
in developing countries is mainly based on small flocks of scavenging birds.
As a consequence, the small scale producers are constrained by poor access
to markets, goods and services; and limited skills, knowledge and
appropriate technologies (FAO 2004). Between 80 to 90% of the households in
rural Africa keep poultry, typically in the hands of women (Kitalyi 1998).
The poultry industry in Uganda is currently composed of almost 40
million birds (UBOS 2010), majority (87.7%) of which, are indigenous
chickens. A decade ago, estimates of annual egg and meat production stood at 41,000 tons of chicken meat and 1,085 million eggs (King, 2002);
equivalent to a per capita consumption of 1.6 kg and 41 eggs respectively.
This is lower than the then Sub-Saharan Africa average given by Aboe et al
(2006). According to the 2008 Human Development Index, about 12% of women in
Uganda were malnourished, 38% of children were underweight, 16% stunted and
6% wasted. The situation to date has hardly improved, and efforts need to be
strengthened to provide more protein at household level, for both
consumption and sale. Several Ugandan studies (e.g. Emuron et al 2010;
Natukunda et al 2011) have showed that chickens hold the promise to overcome
income and nutritional challenges in disadvantaged communities.

Transformation of the village poultry production system from subsistence, to
a cash generating activity requires novel techniques that involve improving
productivity while keeping production costs low and conserving the
indigenous chicken genetic resources. Livestock keeping has always been
identified as one of the income generating activities which has potential to
reach the majority of the rural poor. For the very poor and often landless,
poultry is the best starting point up and eventually off the poverty ladder.
Kugonza et al (2008) reported that in Eastern Uganda, following the end of
decades of debilitating inter-tribal cattle thefts, exchange of chickens for
goats, and subsequently for cattle, was a strategy for restocking cattle in
the sub-region, and revamping crop agriculture which is largely ox-plough
driven.

The
recommended/conventional methods of poultry keeping mainly emphasize
intensive care. However, this is economically feasible only for medium scale
enterprises that keep exotic/commercial broiler and layer breeds, and for
households with alternative sources of income that can offset regular costs.
For smallholder poultry farmers (<250 birds), there is need for their
enterprise to be maintained at a minimum cost, otherwise, it would become
non-viable. Economic analysis of broiler production in Kenya has showed that
a flock size below 500 birds is not profitable (http://www.infonet-biovision.org).
With the costs of managing chickens ever rising, especially due to feeding
challenges, there is need to devise means of keeping these costs at a
minimum. One such approach is to promote semi-intensive management
techniques. Farmers in central Uganda are found of a number of chicken
management practices which are largely a result of their own innovation.
These non-conventional practices include: synchronised laying and hatching
of eggs; temporary confinement of hens during incubation of eggs and
brooding of chicks; and painting of free range chicks with unnatural colours
such as green, blood-red etc. to protect them from predation. Lutalo et al
(2010) have described such innovations and processes to validate them
through joint experimentation with farmers,
so as to attain participatory technology development (PTD) and its
popularisation.

In this
paper, the efficacy of some of these innovations in particular, the effect
of using group/communal laying nests versus individual nests; and the use of
a spatially restricted range during natural egg incubation and chick
brooding, by use of an “incubation box” on the performance of indigenous
hens and their progeny, was evaluated.

Materials and
methodology

Study area

The
experiment was conducted on a private farm (0° 31' 44 N, 32°
14' 55 E) owned by one of the innovators, and located in Namayumba
sub-county, Wakiso district in Central Uganda at an altitude of 1168 m asl.
The central region of Uganda has the highest human population and is
characterised by an escalating demand for indigenous chickens and their
products (Kyarisiima et al 2009). The study area was also chosen because it
had a high concentration of chicken farmers, who keep indigenous and exotic
chicken breeds and their crosses, under varied systems of management:
intensive, semi-intensive and extensive, such that validated technologies
from this study could easily be taken up by the community and up-scaled into
business ventures.

Experimental birds and egg handling

Thirty six indigenous (I)
hens and eighteen F1 crossbred (C) hens were mated either to Indigenous
cocks (I) or Exotic cocks (E) of the brown-egg layer Bovan Brown breed, as
shown in table 1. Nine hens were randomly assigned to each mating group.
After mating, the hens laid eggs either in assigned communal nests or in
individual nests. Eggs that were laid in communal nests were collected daily
and stored in a separate room at room temperature in 30-egg trays. Trays
were labelled to avoid mixing up eggs of different chicken genotypes.
Candling of eggs was done to ensure that only good and fertile eggs were
incubated. When the hens eventually turned broody, each hen was given 12
eggs of those originating from communal nests, to be incubated naturally.
Only eggs from communal nests were used to avoid the confounding effect of
age on hatchability, since the hatching quality for old eggs could have
degenerated. Hens were then randomly assigned to either of two treatments.
In treatment I, all hens were confined individually to a wooden “incubation
box” measuring 2 m × 0.5 m × 0.2 m. In treatment II (control), broody
hens had full access to free range conditions during the day.

Table 1.
Experimental design

Restricted rangea mating group

Free rangeb
mating group

Item

I × I

I × E

C × E

I × I

I × E

C × E

Hens/mating

3

3

3

3

3

3

Replications

3

3

3

3

3

3

Hens/mating system

9 (7)

9 (9)

9 (7)

9 (8)

9 (7)

9 (7)

Hens/restriction system

27 (23)

27 (22)

Total number of hens

54 (45)

I =
Indigenous, E = Exotic, C = Crossbred
Number of hens used for data analysis is in parentheses; some hens
never turned broody and could not be used further;
a
Restricted range, confined hen during incubation and brooding
b
Free range, un-confined hen during incubation and brooding

The
“incubation box” was made of timber boards on the sides, a wire mesh floor
and an open roof covered by a movable mat made from woven sticks (Figure 1).
The box was fitted with a movable partition board that left an open
passage/creep window at the bottom. The partition was fitted when a hen was
brooding, such that the hen occupied one half of the box with her chicks,
which could walk through the window and eat a high protein chick mash in the
other half of the box.

Figure 1.
Incubation and brooding box (photo by William Critchley)

The treatments commenced
after assembling of the birds to ensure that they had acclimatised to the
study conditions. During the laying period all the birds were allowed access
to the free range. During the incubation and brooding stage of study, hens
were fed a 15% CP diet. Chicks were provided with a creep feed (20% CP) at
free will during brooding until they were weaned. Both diets were based on
maize bran, cotton seed cake, fish meal and common salt (Nacl). Water was
provided ad libitum to hens and chicks.

Data
collection and analysis

Egg
production and feed intake of hens in each treatment category was measured
per day. The number of chicks hatched per hen was recorded. Live weight of
chicks, hens and cocks, morbidity and mortality of chicks, and faecal yield
of confined hens were measured and recorded weekly. Hatchability was
determined as the proportion of eggs incubated that hatched into chicks.The 2×2×2
factorial design was analysed using Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS, 2004)
General Linear Models procedure. Means were compared, using Tukey’s Least
Significant Difference.
The statistical model used was:

Yijkl
= µ + ai + bj + ck +
abij + acik + ɛijkl

where Yijkl is a given observation; μ
is the general mean common to all observations; ai is the effect
of the ith hen breed (i = 2); bj is the effect of the
jth cock breed (j = 2); ck is the effect of the kth
range (k = 2); abij is the effect of interaction between hen
breed and cock breed; acik is the effect of interaction between
hen breed and range; and ɛijkl is the random effects
unusual to each observation.

Results and
discussion

Effects
of breed, communal laying and the restricted range/box

The mean
number of eggs laid and hatched per hen varied significantly (P <
0.05) across the treatments (Table 2). The number of eggs produced per hen
was highest in the use of communal/group laying. Crossbred hens laying
communally had an average of 10.7±0.5 eggs while those under free
range individual nesting had 8.4±0.4 eggs. Indigenous hens under
group laying averaged 9.5±0.9 eggs while those under individual nests
averaged 6.9±0.9 eggs. The results show that communal laying followed
by removal of eggs, delayed development of broodiness in the hen,
attributable to an inhibiting response to accumulation of eggs in the
individual nest. Broodiness can be controlled by manipulation of the
environment to remove stimuli that encourage nesting behaviour. Such stimuli
include regular removal of eggs (Squires 2010) and depriving hens of their
chicks (Eltayeb et al 2010). Nesting behaviour is stimulated by the
interaction of oestrogen and progesterone, and starts just before egg
laying, and the behaviour advances into broodiness, when laying is done for
some weeks. Prolactin decreases the secretion of Leutenising hormone (LH),
resulting into ovary regression and cessation of egg laying (Squires 2010).

Communal
laying also positively influenced hatchability as eggs were collected and
stored safely and hygienically, compared to when eggs are left to accumulate
in the layer nests.
Fertilised eggs are live and therefore, successful hatching depends on how
well the eggs are taken care of from laying till setting
(Ondwasy et al 2006).

The clutch
size of indigenous free range chickens in our study was within the range for
native chickens in the eastern Africa region, and had comparable mean
values, for example, to 11.8 eggs in central Tanzania (Mwalusanya et al
2001) and 13.5 eggs in Ethiopia (Tadelle et al 2003). However, we observe
that to improve the results of communal laying, serial and synchronised
hatching could also be undertaken so that chicks are hatched in batches so
as to ease their management.
Serial
hatching involves hens
being used to sit on eggs continuously for two or more times by removing
chicks every time they hatch and replacing them with new eggs (Ondwasy et al
2006); while with synchronized hatching, when hens that started laying
within the same week reach broodiness, the first hen to reach this stage can
be delayed by being given one dummy egg to sit on. This can be repeated for
the 2nd and 3rd hens so that finally all the hens are set on one day, and
the dummy eggs destroyed. Ondwasy and colleagues (2006) also reported that
if serial hatching is coupled with synchronisation, then a farmer could
hatch more chicks without using an incubator.

SEM is standard error of mean
a,b,c
Means in the same row and within factor with different superscripts
are significantly different
*, **, ***, significantly different at p < 0.05, p <
0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively. NS, not significant at p > 0.05

The number of
chicks hatched per bird was highest among hens that were confined in incubation
boxes. An average of 11±1.0 chicks were hatched from each confined
crossbred hen, an equivalent of 91.7% of the eggs set. However, this value did
not differ significantly (P > 0.05) from that of confined indigenous hens
that averaged 10.4±0.7 chicks (87% of eggs set), and yet the latter hens
were lighter in body weight. A past evaluation of the incubation capacity of
broody hens in Bangladesh (Azharul et al 2005) found that weight of hens (<950 g Vs >950 g) and number of eggs incubated (8 Vs 11 Vs 14
Vs 17) did not show a significant variation in hatchability. The positive
contribution of confinement cages in improving hen performance has also been
evaluated for the Bay of Bengal in India (Sunder et al 2005). Interestingly,
confinement has other positive attributes such as terminating broodiness of
nursing hens as early as four weeks after hatching, leading to resumption of egg
laying and an overall improvement of eggs per hen per year of 43% (Sazzard
1993). Elsewhere, when confinement of chicks was done at two weeks, mother hens
were able to come back into subsequent lay after 29.9 days in the dry season,
and 32.8 days during the wet season (Lwesya et al 2004), while unconfined hens
took up to 100 days to return to lay. Amin et al (2009) also reported
performance improvements both for chicks and hens under separation, and in
agreement with our current study, separation of chicks and supplementary feeding
is highly beneficial.

More chicks (7.2±0.7)
were produced from eggs incubated in boxes by indigenous hens bred to indigenous
cocks, compared to 6.0±1.2 chicks from similar parents but incubated by
free range hens. Egg hatchability was better among confined incubating hens
across all breed matings. Crossbred hens that were confined in boxes during
incubation had a hatchability of 93.9% which was higher than that of crossbred
hens under free range (78.5%) but was lower than that for indigenous hens also
under confined incubation (96%). These results show that the confinement of hens
during incubation ensures that the hen sits on her eggs for longer periods since
the brooding hen has access to feed and water within the vicinity. Our results
on free ranging chickens agree with Njenga (2005) who found that free range hens
in coastal Kenya had a hatchability of 78.5% on-station and 84.6% under on-farm
conditions. Local hens under extensive conditions in Nigeria were reported to
lay 60 to 80 eggs per year, and that this increases to 124 eggs when birds were
kept in battery cages (Ibe 1990). In the current study, we also observed that
indigenous hens were better at brooding than their crossbred counterparts, who
lost their broodiness behaviour when chicks were still too young. Nevertheless,
we observe that it is still an advantage if crossbred hens produce more eggs and
also incubate. It is largely expected that with an increase in the proportion of
exotic genes, for instance through upgrading, broodiness is likely to be lost
further. FAO (2010) reported that domestic hens bred for high egg production
have more or less lost their ability to become broody, because many generations
of selection for higher egg production have favoured genes that hinder the onset
of the broody period.

The number of
chicks weaned per hen in our study followed a dramatic trend (Table 2). Chicks
fathered by Bovan cocks had better survival that those from indigenous
cocks, irrespective of brooding management. This could be attributed to high
chick weights at hatching that are expected for chicks with some exotic genes,
nevertheless, an earlier study by Hartmann et al (2002) showed that no
significant relationship exists between chick weight and post hatch survival.
Chicks weaned per hen were highest among crossbred hens kept in boxes (11.0) and
lowest for indigenous hens under free range brooding (2.9) for similar reasons
cited above. Chick survival was maximum from hatching to four weeks of age among
crossbred hens kept in boxes, and was significantly high (96.4%) for indigenous
hens under the same system. Results seem to show that chicks from crossbred hens
under free range had maximum survival though this is not true since the chicks
had to be brooded indoors, separate from their mothers, since the hens started
abandoning them at one week of age. Artificial brooding is hence responsible for
the observed “maximum” survival. We observe that this is the main flaw in using
crossbred hens to brood chicks under free range conditions, and our study shows
this is not possible. On the other hand, it is possible to utilise indigenous
foster hens to brood the chicks from the crossbred hens if artificial brooding
is not possible. Ondwasy et al (2006) reported that a foster hen can brood up to
65 chicks of different ages at the same time, and that
when it gets
cold, the youngest chicks are the first to go under the hen and the oldest will
come later around the hen.

Findings of this
study also show that the box effectively cuts out predation of chicks and
transmission of disease pathogens. Chick mortality under free range brooding was
a result of preying by wild birds and mammals; and trampling by humans and
cattle. In a related study, Lwesya et al (2004) also found that confinement of
chicks resulted in better survival, and highlighted that this confinement had
to last beyond four weeks, otherwise the response does not differ from chicks
not confined at all. In general, they also found that confinement could ensure
100% chick survival while in the control, only 40% survived. According to these
authors, when chicks were released for scavenging when they were larger and
heavier (than the control group), they were able to compete well for the
scavenging feed resource base, while being clever and old enough to run away
from predators. Gondwe and Wollny (2007) reported that in growing and adult
chickens, predation contributes over 20% of losses. While this could imply that
confinement is the best mode of management, the economics of enclosing and
supplementing chickens vis-à-vis the potential value of the increased annual
productivity should dictate the choice of management options (Lwesya et al 2004).

Other than
producing many eggs which also have a better hatchability, crossbred hens do not
seem to have much advantage over their pure indigenous counterparts under the
free range. Considering an earlier study on a crossbreeding programme in Uganda,
Sørensen and
Ssewannyana (2003) poignantly showed that
as the crossbred
birds grew beyond three months, superiority in growth rate diminished gradually
and mortality rose significantly.

Variation in
hen weight, supplemental feed intake and manure yield

Weight of hens
declined with time across the laying cycle and breeds (Table 3). This has also
been observed elsewhere, for instance Azharul et al. (2005) reported weight
losses of up to 12% during incubation. However, results of our study show that
confining the hen in a box during incubation reduces rate of weight loss (Figure
2). In our preliminary work, it was observed that during the incubation period
(week 4 to week 7), offering supplement feed to free range hens led to better
live weights than for hens under full free range scavenging, though the hens
under the latter system seemed to recover the mothering stress faster after
hatching of its clutch. It should still be noted however, that incubating hens
exhibit a depressed appetite (Eltayeb et al 2010) due to hormone prolactin which
tends to promote broodiness at the same time.

Table 3. Effect of hen breed and range on weekly live weight
of hens and weight of manure produced per hen

Live hen weight (kg)

Manure yield/bird (g)

Hen breed (H)

Range (R)

Significance

Range (R)

Week

I

C

Box

Free

H

R

H x R

Box

Free

1

1.69a

1.80b

1.85a

1.64b

*

***

NS

449.1

-

2

1.72

1.76

1.80a

1.68b

NS

**

NS

-

-

3

1.69a

1.81b

1.84a

1.65b

*

***

NS

608.4

-

4

1.69a

1.75b

1.79a

1.64b

***

**

***

-

-

5

1.62a

1.73b

1.75a

1.60b

*

**

NS

724.3

-

6

1.54

1.59

1.62a

1.52b

NS

**

*

-

-

7

1.54

1.59

1.63a

1.50b

NS

**

NS

708.2

-

8

1.54

1.62

1.65a

1.51b

NS

**

**

721.1

-

9

1.53a

1.64b

1.69a

1.49b

*

***

NS

704.2

-

10

1.55a

1.65b

1.70a

1.50b

*

**

NS

708.2

-

I =
Indigenous, C = Crossbred
a,b
Means in the same row and within factor with different superscripts
are significantly different
*, **,
***, significantly different at p < 0.05, p < 0.01 and
p < 0.001, respectively. NS, not significant at
p > 0.05

The mean supplemental feed intake per bird ranged between 498
g in the first week of confinement and 941 g during the second week of brooding
the chicks, with an overall daily mean consumption across all hen groups of 108 g per bird. The
mean collectable yield of dry faecal matter (manure) per bird across the entire
study period was 95.7 g per bird per day, which projects to 34.9 kg of manure
per bird per annum. Under smallholder peri-urban farming, poultry manure is very
useful for vegetable production, and in many cases is a limiting factor. For
instance, Mugerwa et al (2011) found that cabbage production by smallholder
crop-livestock farmers in central Uganda was not profitable when poultry manure
was applied at a rate of >4 tonnes per ha, primarily due to the
high cost of this manure type. Therefore, the box innovation evaluated in this
study can be incorporated into back-yard farming and in the process ensure
regular poultry manure harvesting. This manure yield cannot be realised under
the conventional pure free range scavenging system of poultry management, as the
birds drop it on the wider range, and not necessarily on the target crop if at
all.

Conclusion

Hens
that laid eggs in communal nests produced significantly more eggs per clutch
than those that used individual nests.

The
use of a box for incubating and brooding hens resulted into significantly
higher egg hatchability, lower live weight loss of the hens, and higher
chick survival rates; than for free range hens. Boxes had additional
advantages of enabling harvest of manure, ease of disease monitoring and
control of disease transmission across clutches. However, the management
labour intensity associated with this innovation may limit large scale use.

Crossbred birds generally performed better than their indigenous
counterparts in all traits, with exception of brooding of chicks.

Recommendations

This study
therefore recommends that:

A technology
package composed of the following should be promoted for small and medium
scale chicken farmers: communal egg laying nests; safe storage of fertile
eggs followed by natural incubation in boxes; natural brooding of chicks in
box for four weeks after which the chicks are weaned.

The
innovated technology should be popularised for small holder poultry farmers
who keep up to fifty mature hens. This would require at least ten of the
confinement boxes.

Two types of
chickens should be used in the system, i.e. pure indigenous hens, and 50%
crossbred hens. The former group would mainly be used for incubation and
brooding, while the latter would produce fertile eggs for hatching and
surplus table eggs for home consumption and, or sale.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful
to the anonymous reviewer whose comments have enriched this manuscript. This
work was commissioned and funded by PROLINNOVA-Uganda, an effort that promotes
local innovation in agriculture and natural resource management. We are also
grateful to R. Namussu and P. Mulindwa for participating in this study.

Eltayeb N M, Wani C
E and Yousif I A 2010 Assessment of
broodiness and its influence on production performance and plasma prolactin
level in native chicken of the Sudan. Asian Journal of Poultry Science 4(1):
1–6.

Ibe S N 1990
Utilizing local poultry gene resources in Nigeria. In the Proceedings of the 4th
World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Edinburgh, UK. Vol.
16: 51–53.

King A 2002Livestock and livestock products. In: Joint donor agencies study
on the performance of and growth prospects for strategic exports in Uganda. EU
Commission, Uganda. 53 pp.

Kitalyi A J 1998
Village Chicken Production Systems in Rural Africa. Household
Food Security and Gender Issues, FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 142;
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome).

Kyarisiima C C,
Kugonza D R and Magala H 2009 Analysis of
production and the marketing chain of local chickens in central Uganda. Final
research project report. Network of Ugandan Researchers and Research Users (NURRU), Kampala, Uganda. 50 pp.

Sazzad M H 1993
Manipulation of the broody period to increase egg production of
indigenous hens under rural conditions in Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 5, Art. #2.
Retrieved from
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd5/2/bangla2.htm

Tadelle D, Million
T, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2003
Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and
performance. Livestock Research for
Rural Development (15)1. Retrieved from
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadea151.htm